A few weeks ago, Steve Sailer teased readers about an article he was writing that dealt with the one demographic factor in the Red State/Blue State divide no one was talking or writing about.
If you don’t know Sailer, you should read some of his work. He writes about politically incorrect topics like race, intelligence and genetics…and fertility rates among white women.
I was actually trying to guess what that factor was, but I had no clue he was referring to something called the “white baby gap.” His article was recently published in The American Conservative. Sailer writes:
[V]oters are picking their parties based on differing approaches to the most fundamentally important human activity: having babies. The white people in Republican-voting regions consistently have more children than the white people in Democratic-voting regions. The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get.I’ll focus primarily on Caucasians, who overall voted for Bush 58-41, in part because they are doing most of the arguing over the meaning of the red-blue division. The reasons blacks vote Democratic are obvious, and other racial blocs are smaller. Whites remain the 800-pound gorilla of ethnic electoral groups, accounting for over three out of every four votes.
That white people in pro-Bush states have more babies on average isn’t new information, is it? While most of us intuit this, we don’t talk about it. It’s almost as taboo as illegitimacy.
Perhaps even more intuitive than the correlation between white birth rates and political leanings are the reasons. People with children seek out less dense and cheaper areas to live in. Red states are less populous than blue states.
To understand what’s driving this huge political phenomenon, you have to think like a real-estate shopper, not like an intellectual. Everybody loves to talk real estate, but the sharp insights into how the world works that you hear while shooting the breeze about houses and neighborhoods seldom work their way into prestigious discourse about public affairs.As you’ve seen on all those red-blue maps, most of America’s land is red, even though Kerry won 48 percent of the vote. Even excluding vast Alaska, Bush’s counties are only one-fourth as densely populated on average as Kerry’s counties. Lower density helps explain why red regions both attract the baby-oriented and encourage larger families among those already there.
Further in the article he lays out what most of us think rather than express. Young singles maximize their options for a mate by moving to areas with other young singles doing the same. When they marry, they tend to move to less “happening” places, and when they have children, they seek even lesser happening places.
Unless you’re wealthy and can afford to live in gated communities or highly secured buildings and send your kids to private schools, I wouldn’t recommend raising a family in New York City, Washington, D.C., or any urban area. Do I really need to explain why? Just think of those other factors we don’t talk about.
I highly recommend the article and Sailer’s web site. Listed on the front page are responses to his “white baby gap” article. As I warned, he writes about controversial stuff. While I may not like some of what he was to say, I agree with his sentiment:
“I believe the truth is better for us than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking. At least, it’s certainly more interesting.”
Addendum: Also see Sailer’s article on the marriage gap. (Hat tip: Polipundit)
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 34 comments }
Sometime in the past few months, CSPAN had a panel on the demographics of the way people vote. I remember Michael Barone commenting on the demographics of people who have abortions. He said, “They’re aborting baby Democrats.” Interesting thought.
Ok, I mean this tongue in cheek, but I am inclined to say that someone finally found form of abortion that is palatable…
But no, even they should live.
But, this may also account for part of the decline in the liberal parties.
Well, I’m raising 4 future conservative, with God’s help.
Well, I happen to think that NYC is a great place to bring up chlidren (I love this town)… as long as you can avoid the public schools. In my case, it’s going to be Catholic school or homeschooling, because there’s no way my kids are going to be a part of the craptacular NYC public school system.
These are fascinating statistics. I’m a part of a church in which the families that have only four or five children are the smaller ones. (No, I know what you’re wondering–We’re Presbyterians. We don’t HAVE to have children, we just WANT to.) The big families, of which there are several, have eight or more kids. My husband often looks around and quips, “If we can’t win any other way, eventually we’ll outnumber them.” Maybe so.
When you consider how many more children conservative families have (without aborting them) the impact is significant, but when you also consider that these families are taking an active role in educating these children in keeping with their Christian faith, the potential cultural impact is even greater than their mere numbers would indicate. (Not one of the children in our church are attending public schools. Most are homeschooled. Others are in a Reformed Christian school.)
Homeschoolers and Christian schoolers are already blowing away the government schooled masses on such things as SAT scores, and college success, not to mention all sorts of competitions such as spelling bees, geography bees, essay contests and the like. It is the best educated of the next generation that will take their places as the leadership of our nation’s governments, businesses, and Universities.
Wouldn’t it be something if the victory in our culture is won not through faithful politics, but by faithful mums and dads?
the guy’s a eugenicist who subscribes to the theory that colored people are less capable than whites inherently… his complete and utter ignorance with respect to environmental influences and how they impact a child’s aptitude over the long term is telling… it simply doesnt matter to him, he needs to show whites are superior no matter what…
good to see the real motivations behind most of the red states voting patterns finally revealed and embraced…
Jim,
So, just looking at birth rates versus votes, that proves what part of your arguement?
Any proof/citations to back up your assertions about Sailer’s motives?
Personally, I am not familiar with him, so I have no horse in this race, but I always get suspicious of m type arguements.
“Wouldn’t it be something if the victory in our culture is won not through faithful politics, but by faithful mums and dads?”
Good one, Dory.
sailer’s motivations are thinly veiled… if you want to believe he’s not a white supremacist hiding behind stats twisted to support his arguments go ahead…
you want proof of some the asinine stuff this guys writes??
” Why do Caucasians differ so much amongst themselves in hair color, while everybody else (with the exception of some blonde Australian Aborigines) has dark brown hair? Here’s my theory, which has been getting some favorable responses.
Blonde and red hair are favorable mutations for women because they make men notice them more. Fair hair reflects more light than dark hair, so it catches the eye more. Women like shiny jewelry for the same reason.
do i need to even explain where this is going??
Jim – While I welcome your participation on my blog, I do expect you to back up your assertions. I’ve read Sailer’s articles, as well as similar work by others. What he has to say is definitely not popular, but I expect you to attack his arguments, research methodology, etc., instead of resorting to ad hominem. It gets tedious, you know?
I loved Sailer’s discussion relating to real estate. I was born and raised inside the beltway, went to college in NYC, and decided a few years ago to raise our future kids in a rural area, schooling them at home or in private schools. My husband and I live in a blue voting precinct (Bush lost by 4) in a red county, in the red state of Virginia.
Really interesting. I am, first, reminded of a recent study finding that Republicans/Conservatives have sex more frequently than Democrats/Liberals. Since my life experience is that sex is almost the most important thing in the world to liberals, maybe they should change their political views!
Second, consider the combined effects of democracy and high Muslim birth rates. What might Western nations look like in 50 or 100 years? I believe predominantly Christian nations will proselytize and convert large numbers of Muslims into Christians. Those predominantly Christian nations will retain much of their current characteristics.
But, what of the increasingly non Christian European nations? Those nations, combining nonChristian populations with democracy and large Muslim birthrates, may be in for large upheavals in this century. They may end up unrecognizable from what they are now.
This is a huge issue. Low blue state birth rates are the tip of the iceberg.
Tip of the iceberg is right! Uncharacteristically, I’m trying to step lightly with this.
Actually, Jim, I do think you need to explain more. And where you think it is going. What is the context of those quotes? A goolge search of his work just as easily returns this quote:
“In summary, inter-racial marriage, long the object of fear and loathing, may turn out to be one route to enriching the human race.”
Doesn’t sound all that much like the words of a white supremicist.
As for your assertion that he doesn’t take environment into account, one article of his I found while googling is the discussion of nutrition in africa and developing nations. He was pointing out the iron and potassioum defiencies so common in the diets of developing nations accounts for a large part of the IQ gap between the developed and underdeveloped nations.
so, now I am curious, what has your exposure to this author been, and where your quotes are from?
Googling your quote led me to the article in question, and it is curious that you didn’t chose to include:
“Still, sexual selection can’t fight too strongly against natural selection. You can’t be a ladies’ man if you are dead. And that may explain why blonde or red hair never became universal anywhere. First, it would lose some of its scarcity value if all women had it. But, also, while it’s good for your daughters, under pre-modern conditions it was bad for your sons. It tended to hurt males at hunting and war.”
OR
“…blonde hair becomes more common the farther in Europe you go north, where the sun is low in the sky – Europe is at a much higher latitude than any other heavily populated region – and the land heavily forested and shady. Within Northern Europe, red hair becomes more prevalent the farther west you go, where, due to the Gulf Stream, the weather is extremely cloudy and misty. So, in Northwest Europe, you can have lots of blondes and redheads because lack of strong sunlight meant that shiny hair worked well for women, without much penalizing their men folk when hunting or raiding.”
Thinking of the Muslim waves crashing this century’s democratic voting booths:
This is another important reason to plant democracy’s flag in the Middle East. Democracy needs to be overwhelmingly recognized as being superior to dictatorship. Secular democracy needs to be overwhelmingly recognized as superior to theocracy.
I’m not saying that this is a stand alone justification for war. But, taking the long view, this is a valuable byproduct of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. Spreading democratic values is important for the people of the U.S., and important for the people of the world.
I’m also trying to say this: It’s important to understand that laws attempting to enforce good behavior have historically been disasterous. For instance, a law forcing citizens to honor their father and their mother would be a disaster.
It’s important to understand that effective laws are about rights, not behavior. Its important that this be understood by people going into voting booths. It’s important to not legislate good Christian behavior or good Muslim behavior into law.
I’m trying to say things correctly, when I need to say what I mean, without apology: I want the waves of future Muslim voters to be very familiar with democratic government, and to understand this concept “laws of good behavior” vs. “laws about rights.”
Plenty of utopian liberal voters in America and Europe have trouble with this concept. I’m hopeful that most future Muslim voters will understand “laws about rights” better than those present day liberals do.
right on gcotharn
SCSI, taking those points further, there are also blonde and red haired Africans, but this can be directly attributable to diet, or rather malnutrition. So maybe there’s something in the Northern diets that tend to promote the fair hair.
I also remember when albinos were rare in Africa, now it’s not uncommon to see them on any given day. However, I don’t think it has so much to do with diet as it has to do with the invasion of Christian ideology for which every person is precious.
By that, I mean post-abortion is/was very prevalent in pagan cultures where new born twins, or those phsyical/pigment deformities were routinely killed for fear of some resident evil within the baby(s).
If the deformities were to be discovered later in life, the unfortunates would be abandoned or dropped off at the nearest mission.
Much like we ‘used’ to study the founding fathers and other shapers of the US, Mary Slessor (1848-1915) was a Scottish missionary who did much to challenge this pagan practice and consequently was made a ‘founding mother’ of modern Africa in W. African schoolbooks and lore. Right alongside famous/infamous African chieftains and modern figures in independence movements, students also typically studied David Livingston, Mungo Park, Johann Rebmann, Richard Burton, Hugh Clapperton and other colonial era explorers & missionaries.
I guess liberals blame God for changing these attitudes and giving these rejects the chance that Satan would rather destroy. Furthermore, they accuse missionaries of destroying valid/noble cultural traditions. Yeah, right.
Well, to some, killing babies is a valid, noble cultural tradition. Just ask planned parenthood.
The issue of IQ superiority is one thing, equality before the law is another.
A third thing is my own idea that the “optimal laws” for a society/ culture of smart folk are NOT the same as the “optimal laws” for a society/ culture of below-average IQ folk.
In all cases and cultures, the incentives need to be set so that folk act in a good way. Good for themselves, their kids, the society around them.
Red staters having more kids is somewhat being matched with the Roe effect; pro-abortionists having less kids.
SCSI
Who’d thunk culture w/o God=culture of death and fear
How come when a white person tries to explain scientific differences in races by trying to come up with scientific explanations for such differences, he gets accused of eugenics and racism?
As for white women’s birth rates and such, I have endometriosis and so do alot of other women. IT’s something else he should look into.
Interesting.
Vdare.com is complaining that U.S. whites are having less babies, overall, then other races in the U.S. They go further to say that wealthy whites have less kids than poorer whites, that wealthy Blacks have less kids than poorer Blacks, etc. They posit that since the wealthy are more likely to be Republican leaning, wealthy whites should have more kids.
Where did they posit that the wealthy are more likely to be republican?
Maybe I overlooked this in someone else’s comment, but did not see what I think is obvious. People with kids voted against liberal trends in marriage and abortion that the Dem’s represented. i.e., What kind of country do you want your child growing-up in? It seems the whole election was what someone was voting against, not for. For example my daughter, a teacher, voted against the Republican “no child left behind” education reforms.
If your daughter doesn’t want the government expecting results from her and using tests to figure out said results, then she should be against the government owning the education system overall.
The data is very interesting. Why is reporting on it racist? I don’t purport to know exactly what it means, but to categorize reporting it as racist seems, well–bigoted– to me. I guess reporting that a preponderance of white clouds in the sky indicates fair weather and a preponderance of dark clouds indicates foul weather is racist then? TILL: Typical Idiotic Liberal Logic.
Anyway, once you have kids you tend to value children at a much greater level than you did before, including those that are unborn. When it comes to raising your own children you become less willing to use them as social experiments to prove a point, so you opt for more traditional methods that have been proven over time. And when it comes to protecting your children’s well being, it supercedes race, politics, location, economics, etc. So once people have children, all preconceptions are off the table and the most paramount thing in the world becomes that child’s overall welfare.
And that is best done in red state areas. And many former liberals are proving that with their feet, as the red states grow and the blue states contract.
My primary beef with Sailer is not that he is a “racist” but that he’s an evolutionist, and uses the framework of that theory as the basis for his assertion of racial differences. My rejection of his theory is that I subscribe to the Scripture which plainly states in Acts 17:26 “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,…”
We are bound by a common humanity based in our creation by a common Creator. As human beings we are all truly made in the image of God. That invests every human being with a worth so surpassing that God the Son gave his own life for some in every racial group on Earth.
Further, IQ is not the ultimate gauge of a person’s worth. Sailer seems inordinately preoccupied with discussions of IQ and the black/white gap, in my opinion. His website is replete with references to The Bell Curve, notices as deferential as some held The Origin of Species (using the short title here, I know).
He quotes Thomas Sowell in one article to support his own contention but admitted that Sowell thinks many racial differences are the result of cultural influences whereas Sailer thinks they are genetic.
Note that I am NOT dismissing Mr. Sailer out of hand; I’m simply saying that as a Christian, I have to be completely aware of the bases for his positions and upon examination, I find them to be wholly contradictory to the Word of God.
One of the vdare articles.
DS- Didn’t that run contrary to the recent studies that showed that the most wealthy in 04 overwhelmingly gave to Kerry and voted Democrat?
I wonder what happens with Sailer’s numbers if you factor in adoptions and not just biological biths? I’m an adoptive parent and anecdotally, it seems like most of our adoptive-parent friends are also pretty politically (and often religiously) conservative. Many also tend to subscribe to the large-family ideal, adoption being an option if they are infertile or too old to have biological children.
Didn’t that run contrary to the recent studies that showed that the most wealthy in 04 overwhelmingly gave to Kerry and voted Democrat?
Actually, if I remember correctly, the top voted for Bush, the near top, Kerry. But this is more than Bush or Kerry, it’s Republican and Democrat.
don’t they also have more divorces? why is that?
There was a fascinating study about two weeks ago, I can’t remember the site, which talked about the number of abortions over the past 30 years, and their propensity to vote. It showed, (obviously these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt), that abortion numbers are far skewed towards Democrats, and, in Florida for example, thousands of presumed Kerry voters never got that chance, as they were aborted. It is somewhat frightening to note, that of all the Western Nato nations, the only one with a positive birthrate today are the red Bush states.
Comments on this entry are closed.